I live in Oklahoma and our dumb broad of a top Governor has totally screwed the economy. We pay teachers the least of any state which means we pay to train them and they quickly get lured to Texas or other states with politicians who have a brain.

Trump is looking at a matching program of 1 to 4, but we don't have the money to cover a million dollars of Federal funds. States with more stable financials will be sucking Oklahoma's share up faster than we can get rid of the dumb broad with the cheap plastic surgery.

MSPbrandon, ironically I’m writing you from Bloomington. Cold tonight for a Texan, brings back good memories of living in Ottawa.

I agree with what you have written. What to say? Of course a big infrastructure plan is needed. This isn’t it, though. I work in the industry and there’s no there there. It’s all a bunch of buzzwords and academic concepts that have no hope of ever being implemented well, and there will probably be one showcase project or two, but it won’t be transformative.

My personal opinion is that these days you can say “public-private partnership” and no one (right, or these days, left) will disagree because it “sounds good” and the Fox News generation think that it will save money because government is incompetent.

The public sector in the U.S. has built the interstate system, the airport system (and the airspace system, forgot about that), most of the public transit system (with the exception of the original NYC transit system), and all of the ports. We can do it again. We don’t need to put “signature projects” up for bid as a circle jerk.

I live in Oklahoma and our dumb broad of a top Governor has totally screwed the economy. We pay teachers the least of any state which means we pay to train them and they quickly get lured to Texas or other states with politicians who have a brain.

Trump is looking at a matching program of 1 to 4, but we don't have the money to cover a million dollars of Federal funds. States with more stable financials will be sucking Oklahoma's share up faster than we can get rid of the dumb broad with the cheap plastic surgery.

I feel for you, Ken. I’m from Texas (Houston, not OKC South). Don’t know how old you are but my grandparents would’ve laughed these people out of the room. That said, they were complicit in allowing this to happen.

Oklahoma had such a great tradition of civic pride. It’s an insult that such a transparently dumb person can be governor and create fault lines in Oklahoma. That takes a special talent.

I feel for you, Ken. I’m from Texas (Houston, not OKC South). Don’t know how old you are but my grandparents would’ve laughed these people out of the room. That said, they were complicit in allowing this to happen.

Oklahoma had such a great tradition of civic pride. It’s an insult that such a transparently dumb person can be governor and create fault lines in Oklahoma. That takes a special talent.

I'm actually from Texas also - born in Corpus and Dad was transferred to Houston after a few years in Lake Charles, Was in Houston then just west and south of the Stadium at Rice - on Dryden Road between Greenbriar. and Morningside. Went to Elementary School there before moving to Tulsa.

In case you can't guess my Dad worked in the Oil Industry. Gulf Oil to be exact.

Tulsa does have great civic pride and there are also wealmhymen & women who have given with exceptional generosity to continue improve the town. We are in the process of finishing a two year construction program to deliver a world class park, with George Kaiser being the driving force (and major contributor) to this $200+ Million project. That is what makes it so sad that the radicalized Republicans in the state work so hard to bankrupt the state finances.

BTW, I'm 73, have gone through 4 major cancer surgeries and have a possible Parkinsons on the near horizon. When I look at my wife, kids and grandkids I not only consider my self very lucky, but also have strong desires for this countries future to be for all Americans, not just the Billionaires Boys Club.

Good to see that America (read Republicans), finally wants to invest in their country. Investing in infrastructure is always a good thing and will give an economic and social return. They should have adopted the Obama plan for combatting the economic crisis, now they are investing this money into an economic up turn.

This is hilarious, from the article: "An additional $20 billion would go toward "projects of national significance" that can "lift the American spirit,"

I'm eager to see Republican governors quickly accepting this proposal. They refused Medicaid expansion (deficits and such because their states would be too burdened) but would have no issue being burdened by infrastructure projects.

Good thing is that this plan has very little chance of passing as written.

What a piece of garbage. Trump's "infrastructure plan" is to tell the state and local governments to spend more money (which they don't have) and the federal government will give you a little more (from a funding source TBD, probably deficit spending).

Trump's plan is more of the same. How to shaft the middle class and poor folks. He cuts taxes for the rich, and then send out to the states where the tax rates are already flat, and asks for the fundings from their. Therefore the middle class and poor keep paying more and more of their non disposable income to fund upgrades that could have been funded by the wealthy, under a workable progressive tax system. This is nothing but back breaking regressive taxation by the lying GOP.

MSPbrandon, ironically I’m writing you from Bloomington. Cold tonight for a Texan, brings back good memories of living in Ottawa.

I agree with what you have written. What to say? Of course a big infrastructure plan is needed. This isn’t it, though. I work in the industry and there’s no there there. It’s all a bunch of buzzwords and academic concepts that have no hope of ever being implemented well, and there will probably be one showcase project or two, but it won’t be transformative.

My personal opinion is that these days you can say “public-private partnership” and no one (right, or these days, left) will disagree because it “sounds good” and the Fox News generation think that it will save money because government is incompetent.

The public sector in the U.S. has built the interstate system, the airport system (and the airspace system, forgot about that), most of the public transit system (with the exception of the original NYC transit system), and all of the ports. We can do it again. We don’t need to put “signature projects” up for bid as a circle jerk.

I can't speak for all U.S. cities, but in Minneapolis/St. Paul the government let our transit system be destroyed. We had an excellent streetcar system comparable to those in Europe. First the government wanted low fares, but the problem is that it was run by a private company (as in, they had to make a profit). Then corrupt people managed the private transit company and completely destroyed the streetcar system. Did the public have a say in this? No. In a more competent timeline I think the busiest streetcar lines would have been saved, and the rest replaced by buses. Instead however we have to spend billions rebuilding it and in a couple decades all we've managed to do is build two light rail lines, one commuter rail line, and improvements to urban bus routes.

I do like the idea of less environmental review for major transit projects, but will that be the case in a GOP controlled administration? I'd like to be proven wrong, but I doubt it considering typically conservatives are anti-transit. So moving forward the Twin Cities has to rely less on federal funds with lots of red tape attached, and try to get more public-private partnerships. But more importantly we need better dedicated local and state funding for transit; no one wants to talk about it because it means higher taxes and higher costs for driving, but sooner or later we need to have that discussion.

I won't be holding my breath getting funding from the federal government for our next three major transit projects; two light rail lines and one intercity rail line. Unfortunately we need more than half the funding for these projects to come from the federal government.

DC10-40,MD88,A319,A320,A332,717,722,733,737,738,752,ATR-72,736,788SY,DL,FI,FL,BA,EI,NW,MG,DY,EZY,F9,WN,SN,ET,SKToo many airports to fit in signature.

The public sector in the U.S. has built the interstate system, the airport system (and the airspace system, forgot about that), most of the public transit system (with the exception of the original NYC transit system), and all of the ports. We can do it again. We don’t need to put “signature projects” up for bid as a circle jerk.

Not sure what you mean by up to bid, but the public sector is not managing even basic maintenance well in many places. California has nearly the worst roads in the country every year but has discovered that they get much better value by outsourcing the work. When a bridge falls down, they call a contractor who finishes it early and under budget. The US needs this, public sector unions or not.

cledaybuck wrote:

What a piece of garbage. Trump's "infrastructure plan" is to tell the state and local governments to spend more money (which they don't have) and the federal government will give you a little more (from a funding source TBD, probably deficit spending).

Federal matching funds has a long history in the US, this is nothing new. If the locality wants the money, they find it, often through bonds.

casinterest wrote:

Trump's plan is more of the same. How to shaft the middle class and poor folks. He cuts taxes for the rich, and then send out to the states where the tax rates are already flat, and asks for the fundings from their. Therefore the middle class and poor keep paying more and more of their non disposable income to fund upgrades that could have been funded by the wealthy, under a workable progressive tax system. This is nothing but back breaking regressive taxation by the lying GOP.

Just a point of order, the poor and lower-middle class pay very little taxes of any kind. In the states I've lived, no federal income tax (often netting a couple thousand back for child credits), no state income tax, no tax on food. They get hit proportionally hard on property (if they own real estate) and fuel tax, some states more than others. State "fees" cannot be forgotten either, $200 to the DMV every year hurts many, for example. Might be interesting to see the red/blue color trend of those states who actually tax the poor the most.

Trump's plan is more of the same. How to shaft the middle class and poor folks. He cuts taxes for the rich, and then send out to the states where the tax rates are already flat, and asks for the fundings from their. Therefore the middle class and poor keep paying more and more of their non disposable income to fund upgrades that could have been funded by the wealthy, under a workable progressive tax system. This is nothing but back breaking regressive taxation by the lying GOP.

Just a point of order, the poor and lower-middle class pay very little taxes of any kind. In the states I've lived, no federal income tax (often netting a couple thousand back for child credits), no state income tax, no tax on food. They get hit proportionally hard on property (if they own real estate) and fuel tax, some states more than others. State "fees" cannot be forgotten either, $200 to the DMV every year hurts many, for example. Might be interesting to see the red/blue color trend of those states who tax the poor the most.

Point of Order, They pay little if any tax because they are the lowest earners in a world where projects and costs are based on Average users. The folks that earn below "Average" have little to NO disposable income as rates for items are set at costs that the "AVERAGE" person can afford. By continuing the process of regressive taxation, the GOP continues to shift the burden to those that cannot afford it. That is why progressive taxes should not be abandoned as the GOP continues to do. They are lowering the average taxable revenue for the growth in Average income that they purport to want. When the Average income grows, so do the costs. This is where deficits balloon, and inflation comes home to roost.

The infrastructure plan is not all bad , when you ask the locals to pay their share of local projects , but at the national level, we need to be able to greatly fund and support national infrastructure such as ports, airports , interstates, railways, and items that facilitate the national economy and industries. Going private doesn't help either all the time as without government standards and bid processes, many screwups can't be fixed.

What a piece of garbage. Trump's "infrastructure plan" is to tell the state and local governments to spend more money (which they don't have) and the federal government will give you a little more (from a funding source TBD, probably deficit spending).

Federal matching funds has a long history in the US, this is nothing new. If the locality wants the money, they find it, often through bonds.

Typical matching funds is 80% federal 20% local or there about. This doesn't even come close to that (much closer to the reverse). This is just telling states and locals to fix their infrastructure and raise the money somehow. It is by no means a 1.5 trillion dollar infrastructure plan.

Last edited by cledaybuck on Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The public sector in the U.S. has built the interstate system, the airport system (and the airspace system, forgot about that), most of the public transit system (with the exception of the original NYC transit system), and all of the ports. We can do it again. We don’t need to put “signature projects” up for bid as a circle jerk.

Not sure what you mean by up to bid, but the public sector is not managing even basic maintenance well in many places. California has nearly the worst roads in the country every year but has discovered that they get much better value by outsourcing the work. When a bridge falls down, they call a contractor who finishes it early and under budget. The US needs this, public sector unions or not.

Except the opposite is true. Go read up on the New Bay Bridge. That monstrosity came in over budget and took longer to build than private contractors said it would. Plus, there are still problems with weak steel. And the thing is still not completely finished. The bike/walking path from Oakland to Treasure Island will still take another few years. And it was built into the bridge!

I lived in Sonoma County, north of San Francisco, for six years. We had road projects with signs saying "date of completion" with a month and year, which had already passed. The project was still under construction. Commuter rail took a year longer to build and came in over budget. And it is still not fully complete. All of it done under contract by private companies.

I don't know what your jab at unions is about. I am guessing that is what you have to put in their because your right wing talking points still say "hate unions" or whatever.

Route66 wrote:

Just a point of order, the poor and lower-middle class pay very little taxes of any kind. In the states I've lived, no federal income tax (often netting a couple thousand back for child credits), no state income tax, no tax on food. They get hit proportionally hard on property (if they own real estate) and fuel tax, some states more than others. State "fees" cannot be forgotten either, $200 to the DMV every year hurts many, for example. Might be interesting to see the red/blue color trend of those states who actually tax the poor the most.

Wrong again. Us who work were paying at or above 9% for sales tax (corporations pay zero) and saw state income tax taken from our pay checks (corporations pay near zero). We who work pay fuel tax (corporations pay zero). You really need to stop with the lie that we who work get a free ride and take advantage of government. It is simply not true. Maybe if you lived in these places you hate, you would know these things. Do some research.

The public sector in the U.S. has built the interstate system, the airport system (and the airspace system, forgot about that), most of the public transit system (with the exception of the original NYC transit system), and all of the ports. We can do it again. We don’t need to put “signature projects” up for bid as a circle jerk.

Not sure what you mean by up to bid, but the public sector is not managing even basic maintenance well in many places. California has nearly the worst roads in the country every year but has discovered that they get much better value by outsourcing the work. When a bridge falls down, they call a contractor who finishes it early and under budget. The US needs this, public sector unions or not.

Except the opposite is true. Go read up on the New Bay Bridge. That monstrosity came in over budget and took longer to build than private contractors said it would. Plus, there are still problems with weak steel. And the thing is still not completely finished. The bike/walking path from Oakland to Treasure Island will still take another few years. And it was built into the bridge!

I lived in Sonoma County, north of San Francisco, for six years. We had road projects with signs saying "date of completion" with a month and year, which had already passed. The project was still under construction. Commuter rail took a year longer to build and came in over budget. And it is still not fully complete. All of it done under contract by private companies.

I don't know what your jab at unions is about. I am guessing that is what you have to put in their because your right wing talking points still say "hate unions" or whatever.

Route66 wrote:

Just a point of order, the poor and lower-middle class pay very little taxes of any kind. In the states I've lived, no federal income tax (often netting a couple thousand back for child credits), no state income tax, no tax on food. They get hit proportionally hard on property (if they own real estate) and fuel tax, some states more than others. State "fees" cannot be forgotten either, $200 to the DMV every year hurts many, for example. Might be interesting to see the red/blue color trend of those states who actually tax the poor the most.

Wrong again. Us who work were paying at or above 9% for sales tax (corporations pay zero) and saw state income tax taken from our pay checks (corporations pay near zero). We who work pay fuel tax (corporations pay zero). You really need to stop with the lie that we who work get a free ride and take advantage of government. It is simply not true. Maybe if you lived in these places you hate, you would know these things. Do some research.

I don't know why you guys are arguing over the use of contractors in large infrastructure projects. They are all built by contractors (some of which are union). No public works or highway department is doing any large construction project. They are all bid out.

Not sure what you mean by up to bid, but the public sector is not managing even basic maintenance well in many places. California has nearly the worst roads in the country every year but has discovered that they get much better value by outsourcing the work. When a bridge falls down, they call a contractor who finishes it early and under budget. The US needs this, public sector unions or not.

Except the opposite is true. Go read up on the New Bay Bridge. That monstrosity came in over budget and took longer to build than private contractors said it would. Plus, there are still problems with weak steel. And the thing is still not completely finished. The bike/walking path from Oakland to Treasure Island will still take another few years. And it was built into the bridge!

I lived in Sonoma County, north of San Francisco, for six years. We had road projects with signs saying "date of completion" with a month and year, which had already passed. The project was still under construction. Commuter rail took a year longer to build and came in over budget. And it is still not fully complete. All of it done under contract by private companies.

I don't know what your jab at unions is about. I am guessing that is what you have to put in their because your right wing talking points still say "hate unions" or whatever.

Route66 wrote:

Just a point of order, the poor and lower-middle class pay very little taxes of any kind. In the states I've lived, no federal income tax (often netting a couple thousand back for child credits), no state income tax, no tax on food. They get hit proportionally hard on property (if they own real estate) and fuel tax, some states more than others. State "fees" cannot be forgotten either, $200 to the DMV every year hurts many, for example. Might be interesting to see the red/blue color trend of those states who actually tax the poor the most.

Wrong again. Us who work were paying at or above 9% for sales tax (corporations pay zero) and saw state income tax taken from our pay checks (corporations pay near zero). We who work pay fuel tax (corporations pay zero). You really need to stop with the lie that we who work get a free ride and take advantage of government. It is simply not true. Maybe if you lived in these places you hate, you would know these things. Do some research.

I don't know why you guys are arguing over the use of contractors in large infrastructure projects. They are all built by contractors (some of which are union). No public works or highway department is doing any large construction project. They are all bid out.

My late father-in-law worked for CalTrans. I have some knowledge of this subject. I was simply pointing out some of what was wrong with the post. He was trolling with misinformation thinking that only private sector can do anything. That is what I saw.

Are we going to actually raise the federal fuels tax or develop any other way of directly or indirectly charging for use of infrastructure AND ensuring the revenue generated is used for infrastructure instead of plugging gaps in the budget unrelated to infrastructure? No?

Are we going to actually raise the federal fuels tax or develop any other way of directly or indirectly charging for use of infrastructure AND ensuring the revenue generated is used for infrastructure instead of plugging gaps in the budget unrelated to infrastructure? No?

Okay, then there's nothing to discuss. We're not doing anything.

Exactly. This is not a plan. It is acknowledging a problem and telling someone else to do something about it.

Exactly. This is not a plan. It is acknowledging a problem and telling someone else to do something about it.

Which is par for the course which almost any infrastructure plan developed for many, many years now.

No one wants to pay for it, and even when there's a mechanism to pay for it, the funds generated are constantly siphoned off for non-infrastructure purposes. Local, state, and federal fuels taxes are all the same in that respect. Same with the Harbor Maintenance Fee, which is one of my biggest pet peeves. It is LITERALLY THE NAME OF THE TAX, yet most of the money either sits around doing nothing or is used to plug holes in the budget that have nothing to do with harbor maintenance.

"Oh, but we can't make everyday Joe and Jane pay for this."

Why the hell not? They use it directly and indirectly all the time.

As we move toward more fuel-efficient modes of transportation or ones that don't even use traditional fuel (i.e. electric cars), we need a mechanism that will effectively charge for use of infrastructure and keep that revenue for the maintenance, upkeep, and improvement of that infrastructure.

Exactly. This is not a plan. It is acknowledging a problem and telling someone else to do something about it.

Which is par for the course which almost any infrastructure plan developed for many, many years now.

No one wants to pay for it, and even when there's a mechanism to pay for it, the funds generated are constantly siphoned off for non-infrastructure purposes. Local, state, and federal fuels taxes are all the same in that respect. Same with the Harbor Maintenance Fee, which is one of my biggest pet peeves. It is LITERALLY THE NAME OF THE TAX, yet most of the money either sits around doing nothing or is used to plug holes in the budget that have nothing to do with harbor maintenance.

"Oh, but we can't make everyday Joe and Jane pay for this."

Why the hell not? They use it directly and indirectly all the time.

As we move toward more fuel-efficient modes of transportation or ones that don't even use traditional fuel (i.e. electric cars), we need a mechanism that will effectively charge for use of infrastructure and keep that revenue for the maintenance, upkeep, and improvement of that infrastructure.

Since NO ONE wants to do that, we're pretty much F-ed.

To be fair, I don't believe the federal highway trust fund has been touched since 1997 and is currently receiving funds from other sources to stay solvent. While a new way of paying for infrastructure would be nice given the declining gas revenues, I would be happy for now just to raise the current tax and index it to inflation.

Well, time to legalize marijuana...Washington State realized $500million in taxes from it last year... Also, try this...go to your banker and tell her, "I am cutting my hours/wages, but I still want you to increase my credit limits on my accounts..."

To be fair, I don't believe the federal highway trust fund has been touched since 1997 and is currently receiving funds from other sources to stay solvent. While a new way of paying for infrastructure would be nice given the declining gas revenues, I would be happy for now just to raise the current tax and index it to inflation.

You're right about the federal highway fund itself.

That's at least *partially* because fuels taxes are often diverted at all levels for non-infrastructure purposes before they really even get to settle in to the ratty digs of that level of government's version of the Highway Trust Fund.

In the interim, the fuels tax has to be raised. But, longer term, there has to be another mechanism. Electric cars avoid the current mechanism. That's unacceptable.

Not sure what you mean by up to bid, but the public sector is not managing even basic maintenance well in many places.

That is a FUNDING problem that will remain unsolved by this bill.

Route66 wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

What a piece of garbage. Trump's "infrastructure plan" is to tell the state and local governments to spend more money (which they don't have) and the federal government will give you a little more (from a funding source TBD, probably deficit spending).

Federal matching funds has a long history in the US, this is nothing new. If the locality wants the money, they find it, often through bonds.

Not at these ratios, Route66--it's historically the opposite for major infrastructure projects--80% federal, 20% local. CleDayBuck is right.

When tRumps cuts the Social safety net (Welfare) and Social Security and Medicare and finally kills Obama care there will be plenty of money for infrastructure. I am surprised that he has not proposed a program like the WPA, or Works Progress Administration. Well we cannot have that, that was a Democratic Program like they all are. Wait! Obama care is still alive, I take that back.

Personally I believe in moving capital acquisitions to lease programs. We need more A-10 type attack planes. There is no reasons why we can't add 50 to 200, plus spare parts and toss them on a 20 year lease. Interests rates are cheap enough. Same with a few more tankers, Fighters - didn't I read that -16s are close in performance to the F-35 and a lot cheaper? The Navy should be building classic DDDs, with upgraded weapons systems, electronics, etc. I also liked the old (WWII?) DDEs that were riding Shotgun for us when the LONG BEACH was operating as Red Crown/PIRAZ. Those DDEs could also do export for carrier groups, adding more ship coverage as well as ShotGun tasks and recovery tasks. As an old sailor I of course would liker to see a couple Battleships (3 actually)with the 16" guns. Those could be bought on a 30 year lease ( all leases would be Lease To Buy). those BBs do provide the best gunfire support in the Navy and can also act as a Command ship when Flag is aboard.These types of programs strengthens the military as well as providing decent jobs with a pay above the poverty line,

There is no reasons why we can't add 50 to 200, plus spare parts and toss them on a 20 year lease. Interests rates are cheap enough.

And that would safe money vs. deficit spending flat out buying them how? At least here armed forces don´t pay taxes, so there is no benefit in shaping the balance sheet by leasing stuff and i doubt any leasing company gets better interest rates than the US government. They also have no way of generating economy of scale effects, since the qty for the US forces would be the total qty, and leasing companies aren´t charities, so they want to make a profit too. Unless leasing works significantly different in the US as it does in the EU, leasing would only make stuff more expensive.

The public sector in the U.S. has built the interstate system, the airport system (and the airspace system, forgot about that), most of the public transit system (with the exception of the original NYC transit system), and all of the ports. We can do it again. We don’t need to put “signature projects” up for bid as a circle jerk.

I don't know if you guys can do it again. You really need to figure out where does all the money go in your construction sector. In NYC, this poor 2nd Ave Subway (1.5 miles of tunnel and 3 stations) cost about $10 billion (!) to build. This is 3-4 times (!) more than similar things cost in other regions of the world. What's amazing me - in cities of China, Moscow they are opening such "second avenue subways" every quarter or so, and still have money for everything. And you are talking about large scale projects. You'll go broke with all of them.

Last edited by anrec80 on Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Personally I believe in moving capital acquisitions to lease programs. We need more A-10 type attack planes. There is no reasons why we can't add 50 to 200, plus spare parts and toss them on a 20 year lease. Interests rates are cheap enough. Same with a few more tankers, Fighters - didn't I read that -16s are close in performance to the F-35 and a lot cheaper? The Navy should be building classic DDDs, with upgraded weapons systems, electronics, etc. I also liked the old (WWII?) DDEs that were riding Shotgun for us when the LONG BEACH was operating as Red Crown/PIRAZ. Those DDEs could also do export for carrier groups, adding more ship coverage as well as ShotGun tasks and recovery tasks. As an old sailor I of course would liker to see a couple Battleships (3 actually)with the 16" guns. Those could be bought on a 30 year lease ( all leases would be Lease To Buy). those BBs do provide the best gunfire support in the Navy and can also act as a Command ship when Flag is aboard.These types of programs strengthens the military as well as providing decent jobs with a pay above the poverty line,

More military? With all due respect to you as to a military member - you already have more military that you can afford. Having GDP of about 18% of the world's one, your military spending are about as much as the rest of the world combined together! Before adding more planes, you really need to figure out what's going on with your financials. New aircraft carriers in tens of billions, new fighter jets (F-22/F-35) in hundreds of millions anyone? And all that while your competitors (China/Russia) can have similar things for 5-7 times (!) less and can easily afford similar programs.

Before you buy more planes, you need to think of a simple thing. It's generals who win battles, but it's economy that wins wars. If your country starts going broke under the weight of all these added wart machinery, it [the country] will start disintegrating from inside, and it will be a miracle if all that weaponry won't be used by some Americans to kill others.